Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research Integrity and Everyday Practice of Science

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science traditionally is taught as a linear process based on logic and carried out by objective researchers following the scientific method. Practice of science is a far more nuanced enterprise, one in which intuition and passion become just as important as objectivity and logic. Whether the activity is committing to study a particular research problem, drawing conclusions about a hypothesis under investigation, choosing whether to count results as data or experimental noise, or deciding what information to present in a research paper, ethical challenges inevitably will arise because of the ambiguities inherent in practice. Unless these ambiguities are acknowledged and their sources understood explicitly, responsible conduct of science education will not adequately prepare the individuals receiving the training for the kinds of decisions essential to research integrity that they will have to make as scientists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity. (2010). Singapore statement on research integrity, from http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html.

  • American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. (1998). Code of ethics, from http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/3898.

  • Bernard, C. (1957). An introduction to the study of experimental medicine (1865). New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billingham, R. E. (1974). Reminiscences of a “transplanter”. Transplantation Proceedings, 6, 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and common sense. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Solla Price, D. (1983). The science/technology relationship, the craft of experimental science, and policy for the improvement of high technology innovation. In National Science Foundation (Ed.), Role of basic research in science and technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Science education. Teaching creative science thinking. Science, 334, 1499–1500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etkina, E., Karelina, A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 54–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact (1935). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. L. (2007). Creation and revelation: Two different routes to advancement in the biomedical sciences. Nature Medicine, 13, 1151–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, D. (2001). In the case of Robert Andrews Millikan. American Scientist, 89, 54–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinnell, F. (1992). The scientific attitude (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinnell, F. (2009). Everyday practice of science: Where intuition and passion meet objectivity and logic. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, W. (1982). Max Ludwig Henning Delbruck. Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society, 28, 58–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. (1973). Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. I. (1984). Honor in science. New Haven, CT: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, F. (1988). The statue within. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, F. (2011). The birth of the operon. Science, 332, 767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1975). Pragmatism’s conception of truth (1907). In Pragmatism and the meaning of truth (pp. 95–113). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1979). Objectivity, value judgement, and theory choice. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Montalcini, R. (1988). In praise of imperfection. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manoharan, J. (2011, 04/22/2011). Scientific misconduct starts early, from http://www.biotechniques.com/news/Scientific-misconduct-starts-early/biotechniques-314589.html.

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., Crain, A. L., & de Vries, R. (2006). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClintock, B. (1983). Nobel banquet speech—December 10, 1983. In T. Frängsmyr (Ed.), Les Prix Nobel. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medawar, P. B. (1963). Is the scientific paper a fraud? The Listener (September 12), pp. 377–378.

  • Medawar, P. B. (1968). Lucky Jim. The New York Review of Books, March 28, 1968.

  • National Academies National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academies Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. (1992). Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academies—Institute of Medicine. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institutes of Health. (2011). Update on the requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research, from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html.

  • National Science Foundation. (2010). Chapter IV—grantee standards; Part B. Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR), from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf10_1/aag_4.jsp.

  • Peirce, C. P. (1958). Harvard lectures on pragmatism (1903). In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. Burks (Eds.), Collected papers of Charles sanders Peirce (Vols. 1–6, 5, pp. 188–189). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology (E. Duckworth, Trans.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.

  • Plato. (380 B.C.E.). Meno 80 d-e, from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html.

  • Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension (1966). Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Science Advisory Committee. (1960). Scientific progress, the universities, and the federal government (President’s Science Advisory Committee). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (1994). Experimenting in the constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 197–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schachman, H. K. (2006). From “publish or perish” to “patent and prosper”. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 281, 6889–6903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, H. K. (1958). A human enterprise. Science, 127, 1324–1327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & F. Lehnert, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press.

  • Shore, B. M., Delcourt, M. A. B., Syer, C. A., & Schapiro, M. (2007). The phantom of the science fair. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulis, & M. A. B. Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education, volume II: Overcoming barriers to successful implementation. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Academies. (2003). Policy on committee composition and balance and conflicts of interest for committees used in the development of reports (May 12, 2003), from http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/bi-coi_form-0.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1989). Requirement for programs on the responsible conduct of research in national research service award institutional training programs, from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/historical/1989_12_22_Vol_18_No_45.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Mark Frankel, Kenneth Pimple, William Snell and Thomas Mayo for their helpful comments and suggestions regarding this essay.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cell Biology, Program in Ethics in Science and Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA

    Frederick Grinnell

Authors
  1. Frederick Grinnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederick Grinnell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grinnell, F. Research Integrity and Everyday Practice of Science. Sci Eng Ethics 19, 685–701 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9376-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9376-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation